SWP expulsions and squabbles

[TremulousTetra]

Good point about structure not individual impulse, and it would go off topic too much to chase it on this thread. But I think it was Serge said something like 'there are the political equivalents to harmful bacteria in every organisation, it takes certain conditions for them to flourish. I still stand by the idea that workers who have gone through a revolution will have a very low tolerance for self-serving 'leaders', whether such types have arrived by impulse or structure. Even during events a long way short of revolution we can see something like Serge's idea in practice: the SWP I joined during the miner's strike was a lot more lively, irreverent, and scathing towards bullshit than it seems to have become. And from reading their materials, old IS members say the same about the late 60s, early 70s.

I think your post and Serge more accurately capture the dialectical nature of a revolutionary party in an environment, than does the structural determinism of some anarchists.

But more importantly imo the bit I've underlined undermines the argument that "bad politics" HAVE TO lead to failed revolution. We don't have to thrash out the "correct way" to revolution here and now. In fact, the more and the more varied the approaches, the better.

 

[Pickman's model]

I think your post and Serge more accurately capture the dialectical nature of a revolutionary party in an environment, than does the structural determinism of some anarchists.

But more importantly imo the bit I've underlined undermines the argument that "bad politics" HAVE TO lead to failed revolution. We don't have to thrash out the "correct way" to revolution here and now. In fact, the more and the more varied the approaches, the better.

Fucking give it up you useless tosspot

 

[Pickman's model]

abbie's short for abigail

And abimael

 

[TremulousTetra]

Fucking give it up you useless tosspot

your position is so much clearer now.

 

[butchersapron]

I think your post and Serge more accurately capture the dialectical nature of a revolutionary party in an environment, than does the structural determinism of some anarchists.

But more importantly imo the bit I've underlined undermines the argument that "bad politics" HAVE TO lead to failed revolution. We don't have to thrash out the "correct way" to revolution here and now. In fact, the more and the more varied the approaches, the better.

Indeed, the more fuck ups like this the better. Make one, too, many fuck ups. (see what i did there?)

 

[SpineyNorman]

I wonder how Oisi123 has misconstrued their true intention, when PM VP BA 'have' explained it so clearly, WHERE????????????????

I have never said I am not aware the structural determinism some anarchists engage in, all I have done is invited them to flesh out this analysis. something they have steadfastly refused to do.

You're an idiot.

you mean like the SP and the Socialist Alliance?

See above. The SWP didn't exactly cover themselves in glory over that one either did they? Getting the competition out of the way of Respect?

 

[SpineyNorman]

In fact, the more and the more varied the approaches, the better.

Finding it particularly difficult to square this with your SWP hackery.

 

[frogwoman]

thing is bad politics may not mean that a revolution automatically fails but it surely makes it more likely

 

[The39thStep]

Yeah after looking at Kronstadt there was no excuse for it.

The anarchists have made a meal out of this.

 

[Idris2002]

The anarchists have made a meal out of this.

Partridge stew. Yum.

 

[Random]

Now that I've time I'll briefly reply to Nigel, since I do appreciate him replaying to me at length.

But mostly I have to just point out that you haven't really addressed my points. Or that you seem to be arguing against something I've not said. You seem to assume that my criticisms of Leninism mean that I'm saying anarchism would do it better. I thought I was careful to say that anarchism does not have the answers, and that a lot of the flaws of western European Leninist groups are shared by anarchist ones.

If the Trotskyist parties were to seriously decline across Europe (and there really isn't much evidence to suggest this is happening), it will not lead to a growth in serious anarchist organisation, or Left Communism, or Councilism, or anything remotely similar. It will simply mean the end of class struggle Marxist organisation on a scale large enough to be noticeable.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Finding it particularly difficult to square this with your SWP hackery.

RMP3 only talks about openness and varied approaches when he wants to try make some space for his latest inanity.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[butchersapron]

Now that I've time I'll briefly reply to Nigel, since I do appreciate him replaying to me at length.

But mostly I have to just point out that you haven't really addressed my points. Or that you seem to be arguing against something I've not said. You seem to assume that my criticisms of Leninism mean that I'm saying anarchism would do it better. I thought I was careful to say that anarchism does not have the answers, and that a lot of the flaws of western European Leninist groups are shared by anarchist ones.

There are no formal organisational answers to social questions - for most partyists there has to be, or at least it has to be the start point.

 

[Random]

thing is bad politics may not mean that a revolution automatically fails but it surely makes it more likely

For me the important thing is not the effect on "revolution" but on simply being able to carry out work in the here and now. And it's clear to me that even at the same time as the SWP has been able to mobilise hundreds or thousands of activists, the structure of the SWP has sabotaged the aims of campaigns they've been involved with. For example the RESPECT dead-end, and the chasing after celebrities like Galloway effectively made sure that there would be no long-term antiwar movement in the UK. Instead it led to the SWP splitting. Even on their own terms, the attempt to exploit these protests didn't work.

 

[Random]

There are no formal organisational answers to social questions - for most partyists there has to be, or at least it has to be the start point.

Yes, so this is why any challenge to their party is assumed to be on behalf of another party - or at least another branded form of organisation.

 

[barney_pig]

your position is so much clearer now.

However, yours, in respect toward the rape allegations against 'comrade' delta, and the way in which they were treated by the cc and dc are completely opaque. The debate on this thread, even between the most anti SWP anarchos and those who would seek to defend the is/ SWP tradition, has remained overwhelmingly decent, because everyone has deplored the original actions of the dc investigation, what has divided us has been what happens next. You, however have made no comment whatsoever on this, instead seeking it appears to simply derail and disrupt.

 

[butchersapron]

Now this is the bit you have to keep quiet in favour of talking about broad-realignment and openess (always with the space to your right - and i mean the CC here, not ordinary members):

“We are monopolists in the field of politics. We can’t stand any competition. We can tolerate no rivals. The working class, to make the revolution can do it only through one party and one program. This is the lesson of the Russian Revolution. That is the lesson of all history since the October Revolution. Isn’t that a fact? This is why we are out to destroy every single party in the field that makes any pretence of being a working-class revolutionary party. Ours is the only correct program that can lead to revolution. Everything else is deception, treachery. We are monopolists in politics and we operate like monopolists.”

and as bhoy mentions above, they'd be wrong and remiss to think anything different.

edit: oops, i should make clear that is not the open declared view of the the SWP CC it's US bloke Morris Stein in 1944.

 

[cesare]

Blimey.

Ah, helpful edit Useful to see it stated so categorically, though.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Or in the case of the UK modern SWP "one party no program".

 

[Nigel Irritable]

edit: oops, i should make clear that is not the open declared view of the the SWP CC it's US bloke Morris Stein in 1944.

That's a speech by someone who is very slightly famous in retrospect only for having given that boneheadedly sectarian speech in the first place. It's remembered precisely because nobody bar the most lunatic Spartoid agrees with it. And to be fair to the SWP CC, it is in direct opposition to their views about how a revolutionary party will come into being (ie not through the growth of today's SWP) and also in direct contradiction to their views about programme.

 

[butchersapron]

What did marx say about judging people by their actions rather than their blather?

That he (Morris) now offers a rhetorical option for people acting as he said to condemn him is yet another reesian twist i feel, this time with some heavy wilsonian irony.

 

[butchersapron]

And to be fair to the SWP CC, it is in direct opposition to their views about how a revolutionary party will come into being (ie not through the growth of today's SWP)

Is it?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

What did marx say about judging people by their actions rather than their blather?

It's a much more extreme variant of a sectarian view than anything the SWP can really be fairly accused of. And yes, that does mean that it's the sort of sentiment that would allow them to tut disapprovingly and pose as anti-sectarians piously condemning such foolishness.

 

[butchersapron]

You don't say it out loud of course, but when the bulk of criticisms from your party to the SWP accuse them of acting just as our morris has said, where does that leave you?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Is it?

Yes.

 

[butchersapron]

Yes.

Ok, what are their views on "how a revolutionary party will come into being (ie not through the growth of today's SWP)". I think they pretty solidly do think that. I think that the bulk of their activity and propaganda is aimed towards establishing this end, first through dominion over the left-of -labour-but-labour constituency then by pure weight hoovering up the left lefts. All about them.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

You don't say it out loud of course, but when the bulk of criticisms from your party to the SWP accuse them of acting just as our morris has said, where does that leave you?

The SWP are sectarian. Deeply so. But they are not as colossally, stupidly, arrogantly so as Stein. They've done and argued enough stupid shit of their own without it being necessary to convict them of the stupidities of someone in a different party, on a different continent, in a different time.

 

[butchersapron]

The SWP are sectarian. Deeply so. But they are not as colossally, stupidly, arrogantly so as Stein. They've done and argued enough stupid shit of their own without it being necessary to convict them of the stupidities of someone in a different party, on a different continent, in a different time.

But of their crimes coming from the same mould, if a little better finessed and with some PR treatment, easy. You feeling a little hot under the collar Nigel?

 

[Random]

It's not hard to find examples of Leninist parties claiming to be the best, the cleverest, the exceptional, the irreplaceable organisation. And that their work is the best, the most important, etc. it's this kind of belif that keeps them going.

A quick google gets me these quotes from SWP 2012 conference:

"This has been a year in which we, quicker than anyone else, grasped the idea that there was a shift towards the centrality of the organised working class in the resistance against the austerity drive of the coalition."
“Building the party is also about shaping the movement. Whether we recruit someone to the SWP makes a difference to how the struggle builds."

Sure this is softer stuff than the 1944 quote, but it's basically the same belief.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Ok, what are their views on "how a revolutionary party will come into being (ie not through the growth of today's SWP)". I think they pretty solidly do think that. I think that the bulk of their activity and propaganda is aimed towards establishing this end, first through dominion over the left-of -labour-but-labour constituency then by pure weight hoovering up the left lefts. All about them.

Sorry, I'm typing on a phone here so it's a pain in the balls to respond properly. I don't know how people do this without pegging the fucking thing at a wall.